Talk:Middlesbrough F.C./Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is really training with the boro? there are no citations, any respone will be much appreciated, thanks.

- kyasper

He seems to be registered as Aiyegbeni Yakubu although the correct order is Yakubu Aiyegbeni. Should wiki use the version the FA have or his actual name? (Of course you could do as sky have done and get rid of the Aiyegbeni altogether}

Why is the club called 'The Boro' when Middlesbrough has '-brough', not '-borough' at the end? Could something on how the nickname came about be added? Magic Pickle 18:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Because when correctly pronounced brough is pronounced borough (burruh). So the name of the club is pronounced Midd ulls burr uh. Philc _T+C 17:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The correct pronunciation of Middlesbrough is "Midd ulls brugh" as it is spelt. How can it be anything else? Besides, 'Boro' isn't a very unique name -other towns share it- Peterborough, Guisborough etc etc etc Magic Pickle 19:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have actual references to back this up please mention them here. DJ Clayworth 16:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the bit about cricket clubs founding football clubs because it was banal and quite obvious. Ciao.

Does anyone think in the memorable matches section there should be a bit about the Man Utd match that middlesbrough won at home, the club shop felt the need to release a DVD about it lol. just wondering.

Dangerhertz 14:54 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add a bit to this section? Surely something more of note must have happened in the first 98 years of Boro's existence.

Sorry I can't add anything, but I would like to know if anyone knows why we have a Lion on the Crest?± Peter Wilson

Players from other decades too (my father-in-law is one!)

Also, anyone able to explain why the badge says 1986, yet the club were formed in 1876?

Ianguy 06:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The club went bust in 1986, and was reformed famously by a consortium involving Steve Gibson.

isnt the official name Middlesbrough 1986 since the original Middlesbrough went bust?

May I ask any Middlesbrough fans out there whether or not they consider matches against Newcastle and Sunderland to be derbies? I've removed the Tees-Wear and Tees-Tyne derbies from the football derbies page (Actually they were orignially all listed together as "North East derbies" alongside Carlisle. Nothing is guarenteed to make me more angry than that phrase. As I understand it, local derbies are matches between teams from the same city or county. Newcastle and Sunderland are (now) in Tyne and Wear. Middlesbrough is traditionally the North Riding of Yorksire, and now is Teeside. In my opinion, this is too far away to be classed as a derby. If Manchester and Liverpool can't be derbies and only regional games (something that has been discussed on other pages) then Middlesbrough V. Newcastle/Sunderland certainly can't. It's like saying Hearts V. Rangers is a derby (almost)! York or Scarbrough V. Middlesbrough would make for a more appropriate derby (and those aren't derbies at all!). It must also be said that, as someone from Tyneside (Western Gateshead) the people around here don't really feel much of a shared identity with Middlesbrough. Even people from Eastern C.Durham don't and see Teesiders as "southerners".

Obiviously we then have a problem as Middlesbrough can't have a premiership derby. That can't be helped. What would be the next best option, Hartlepool? If anyone can come up with a decent argument why the games should be classed as derbies as opposed to regional games then feel free to discuss it. Sorry this is so long! hedpeguyuk 08:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As a Middlesbrough fan since 1976, I have been to many derbies against Sunderland and Newcastle. You only have to watch the local news after one of these games to see that they should be counted as derbies. After all the local TV channel is called Tyne-Tees. I suspect that this is an attempt to wind-up Boro fans. mike1971inter 12:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT an attempt to wind up Boro fans in any way! Why would I? I am neither a Newcastle nor a Sunderland supporter. I am a neutral football fan who likes ALL of the teams in my area to do well. However, you seem to confuse local games with derbies. Derbies are (usually) games with teams from the same city or, at a push, the same county. Newcastle and Sunderland are in different counties. I suppose maybe it does come to personal opinion but, as I mentioed above, how can a Tyne-Tees game be classed as a derby and not a Man U/City V Liverpool/Everton game? The latter cities are said to be too far away, and are more local games than derbies. As Newcastle and Middlesbrough are further away from one another that Manchester and Liverpool are (I think) how could a Tyne-Tees match count as a derby? A local rivlarly but not a derby.

Also, your point about the local channel doesn't work. The ITV region is Tyne Tees. However, this is a REGION and not a county or city. It is only one channel. What about the BBC's local channel - North East and Cumbria? By the same logic one could class a Carlisle V. York game as a derby simply because they are in the same TV region. Which, by the way, somebody did have included on the local derbies page under the horrible title of "north east derby". hedpeguyuk 12:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is not very objective to say that Boro was unlucky in the final because they were not awarded a penalty. Not everybody think that was a penalty. We could also say that some Middlesbrough players were constantly tackling Sevilla players and deserved to be sent off. I think an encyclopedia should be objective and if the penalty was not awarded we don't have to mention it especially in such an subjective matter as it is soccer. Also you cannot say that "as a result of the desperate search for a draw" Sevilla could score 3 goals in the last 10 minutes instead of saying, for example, that Sevilla was rather superior to the English team who was constantly tackling and even kicking players such as Jesus Navas, Adriano or Marti without receiving a red card. Both views are very subjective. There was a desperate kicking of Rochemback over Marti and he didn't even receive a yellow card despite deserving a red one.

There is nothing wrong with constantly tackling in football. The objective of the game when the opposition is in possesion is to tackle them. As for the penalty decision, it was a pivitol moment in the game where Middlesbrough had their best spell. Seeing that the penalty wasn't given and this was the most important game in their history, it should be noted that the result could have been different. As for the final 10 minutes, Middlesbrough had no option but to push forward for an equaliser and had 4 strikers on the pitch and only two defenders. I fully suspect that you were envious of Middlesbrough's success in Europe and how they emphatically represented English football en route to the final and are looking to dim the incrediable achievement from a club in liquidation 20 years before.

I wonder- has this article been moved at some point? I ask because I remember being one of the first editors here and writing quite a bit including a hefty history section yet I don't appear on the list of editorss somehow...--Josquius 16:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)